request for advice

[Creighton Dement]

Dear Neil and Seqfans, 

In my opinion, there's a difference between fun sequences which make you
laugh or smile (such as
http://public.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A056064 or
http://public.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A096582  ) and just plain
stupid sequences. After  all, it is called the  "Online Encyclopedia.."
and not the "Online Journal..." and it would seem just about every
encyclopedia I've ever looked into has a (presumably smaller) section
with fun/playful facts.  I suggest the keyword PLAY instead of DUMB. and

1. Only 1 PLAY sequence submission (rule holds for everyone) per day.
2. PLAY sequences pass automatically into the database (or some
"adjacent" database)
3. PLAY sequences are ignored by SuperSeeker, etc. 
 
Of course, there is a slight problem: someone may not agree that his
particular sequence is a playful sequence... in that case, how about
this (perhaps overly strict) "definition":

- a sequence is of type PLAY if it references no sequence of type
"NICE". 
or (less stringent) 
- a sequence is of type PLAY if it references no sequence which has not
been contributed to by at least 2 authors. 

The above "definition" would presumably only need to be invoked in case
of a dispute with the author. Sure, an author can articially claim that
his sequence relates to a nice sequence- but that is perhaps easier for
an outside observer such as Neil to judge.

Sincerely, 
Creighton 

It's a shame when the girl of your dreams would still rather be with
someone else when you're actually in a dream.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:07:47 +0100
> Subject: Re: request for advice
> From: Emeric Deutsch <deutsch at duke.poly.edu>
> To: "N. J. A. Sloane" <njas at research.att.com>

> Here are a few thoughts:
> 1. One has to be tough.
> 
> 2. Let's not be personal (limiting to a certain person the number
> of contributions).
> 
> 3. List examples of types of undesirable sequences:
> (a) numbers n such that n and 2n+1 belong to AXXXXXX;
> (b) (3n^2-n-2)/2;
> (c) numbers n such an+b is prime;
> etc. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> 4. Contributors should avoid as much as possible definitions
> that include AXXXXXX. They should take the trouble to give a
> self-contained definition and should mention AXXXXXX only in
> the comments.
> 
> 5. I think that prospective authors should ask themselves:
> 
> can I envisage this sequence appearing in some book or journal?
> 
> If the honest answer to this is a NO, then, with some exceptions,
> the sequence should not be submitted.
> 
> Emeric
> 
>